| 正文（英文）: | The objective of the paper by Verena Hermelingmeier (Wuppertal Institute) and Kimberly A. Nicholas (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies) is to recognise and categorise the various ways that ecosystem services researchers perceive the concept and purpose of ecosystem services (ES). To do so, the authors employed the discourse analysis approach of Q methodology, where 33 researchers ranked 39 statements on ecosystem services derived from the literature. Findings allow the interpretation of five main perspectives on ecosystem services: a pragmatic view on nature conservation, seeing ES as useful tool ("Non-Economic Utilitarian"), a strongly value-focused perspective with a skeptical view on ES ("Critical Idealist"), an opposition to a utilitarian approach to nature conservation but seeing ES as more encompassing approach ("Anti-Utilitarian"), a focus on a methodological rather than a critical approach to ES ("Methodologist"), and a rather economic approach to environmental decision-making, in which ES is a useful tool ("Moderate Economist"). The authors see this plurality as illustrating both the potential of the ecosystem services concept to serve a boundary object for collaboration, but also the threat of ineffective collaboration due to the lack of a common conceptual ground. However, as pluralism can be fruitful if handled transparently, an open dialogue about underlying assumptions when using a value-laden concept like ES is suggested. The paper "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology" was published in Ecological Economics, volume 136. It is available for free download via ScienceDirect.
Further information
Links
|